Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #17 *Arrest*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
tmar said:
With the high mortgage on the house, and many months possibly where little money was added, could there be little left in the value.
With Melbourne prices going down, the house is worth far less now.
So how much, may be present in SR's bucket: not much?
So what happens now????
Continue with the leaky bucket!!
MOO.
Click to expand...
BR won't be allowed to inherit Karen's property--it would be profiting from a crime. Presumably anything of hers will pass to Sarah. BR's wealth is likely to be negative, considering the debts. Also MOO.
 
steve richardson said:
If he was willing to plead manslaughter last year as reported it then makes AR's claims that he was reason he has now baseless. If he was prepared to offer that plea he must have told SR the details so if plea was accepted she didn't have to find out through the media
Click to expand...
I think, BR always knew, his son would put all the dirty wash onto the table, IF he was forced to be a witness. AR already had to be arrested once, when he tried to escape the obligation to testify, I remember. AR could have spoken to his father more than only once "to man up", maybe 1 year ago too.
IF at all, SR had to be informed by her father (last year) only hours before he would have confessed to manslaughter. Maybe, he still hesitated and the next moment it wasn't longer necessary to disappoint her and lose her love.
Whether BR now in 2019 informed her or not, Idk. If he did, I'm sure him having a "nice" explanation for Sarah. That SR wasn't present in the court room, doesn't mean, she didn't know. Maybe the contrary: she wasn't there, because she knew already.
IMO MOO of course
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FromGermany said:
I think, BR always knew, his son would put all the dirty wash onto the table, IF he was forced to be a witness. AR already had to be arrested once, when he tried to escape the obligation to testify, I remember. AR could have spoken to his father more than only once "to man up", maybe 1 year ago too.
IF at all, SR had to be informed by her father (last year) only hours before he would have confessed to manslaughter. Maybe, he still hesitated and the next moment it wasn't longer necessary to disappoint her and lose her love.
Whether BR now in 2019 informed her or not, Idk. If he did, I'm sure him having a "nice" explanation for Sarah. That SR wasn't present in the court room, doesn't mean, she didn't know. Maybe the contrary: she wasn't there, because she knew already.
IMO MOO of course
Click to expand...
I read that Sarah was restricted from being in the court room because she was to appear as a witness. Witnesses aren't allowed to be spectators until after they've given evidence, in case what they hear affects their testimony.
 
JLZ said:
I read that Sarah was restricted from being in the court room because she was to appear as a witness. Witnesses aren't allowed to be spectators until after they've given evidence, in case what they hear affects their testimony.
Click to expand...
... or that reason, maybe.
The newspapers reported, who wasn't in the courtroom, that SR wasn't there. Then I fell for it, obviously.

Ristevski’s unthinkable lie to daughter
Sarah Ristevski was not in court on Wednesday when her father entered his guilty plea. Nor were any members of the victims' family. The courtroom was largely empty because nobody was expecting what unfolded.
 
Director Of Public Prosecutions v. Borce Ristevski
Amended Notice: Evidence Of Incriminating Conduct
Febr 29, 2019
Indictment No. H ........... (illegible for me)

X pages are made public. Very interesting content. Please, help to find.
(knowledge about that from Fb. :))
 
sleepinoz said:
DPP v Ristevski (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 165 (15 March 2019)
Click to expand...
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/v...FPWgDByrmncNEpPbRewBQhvw0NzrCepJWopCgQoCn6N2A

"As previously mentioned, the prosecution sought to establish murderous intent solely on the evidence of the post-offence conduct. As Butler indicates, it is possible for evidence of post-offence conduct by itself to be capable of proving murderous intent, but it is certainly more difficult.[24] It will be recalled that in Butler the evidence that the accused had dismembered and incinerated the deceased was critical to the Court of Appeal’s finding that the post-offence conduct was capable of being viewed as incriminating conduct in relation to murderous intent.[25]"

QUESTION- Should the dismembering and incineration of a body be viewed any differently from hiding a body 60 metres into the bush which took 8 months to be located by accident? BOTH ARE INCRIMINATING CONDUCT, BOTH INTENDED TO "CONCEAL" A BODY. The intention IS THE SAME, the means were the difference.

Importantly, BR knew he was under surveillance and a tracking device had been removed from his vehicle. IMO he may have had further plans for Karen's body or sought assistance in this.
 
sleepinoz said:
Ant had already put all the crap out there years ago.

I can't imagine BR wanting to keep Karen's reputation intact, he's fighting for himself and nobody else. He wouldn't have cared one way or the other what Ant said.
Click to expand...
I think, BR fears for the FAMILY reputation, mainly for himself of course. I'm curious to know, whether AR is satisfied with his father's confession or once more/still disappointed, because his father didn't confess to his true criminal act.
 
I remember reading (copied form on Fb.), that SR left the home at approximately 8:30am. BR left the home in KR's black Merc at 10:43am. Karen died between dawn and 10:43am. (Had even to translate "dawn" as I wasn't quite sure of the meaning.)
Today I'm reading, she died between 8:00am and 10:43.
DPP v Ristevski (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 165 (15 March 2019)
I'm confused now :confused: , but don't want to search for it again.
 
https://www.smh.com.au/national/vic...hcyiTC_w3E6TXSl3BqeVxKRbdWUibugXp-1RK_a3IAnqU

Borce Ristevski warned daughter not to trust police

Police taps on Borce Ristevski's phone after he killed his wife Karen captured him arranging for new mobile phone numbers and warning a relative, "they're listening".

A Supreme Court ruling released on Monday reveals Ristevski constructed a web of deceit to mislead family and friends, including telling his daughter not to trust police and procuring new SIM cards because he knew police were tapping his phone calls.
 
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...hter-not-to-trust-police-20190318-p5154m.html

But Ristevski's lawyers said the couple's financial situation would actually get worse with Karen's death.

"She was in effect the heartbeat of the Bella Bleu clothing business ... Her importance to that business was a motive for the accused not to kill her," the court documents read.
Bella Bleu was owned by Warrant Brands, which originally paid the expenses, including staff wages, rent and stock purchases.
But in December 2015, Mr Ristevski started Envirovision and named himself the director. His daughter, Sarah Ristevski, was a stakeholder. There was no mention in court of Karen’s involvement, if any.
‘Yelling and screaming’ heard before Karen disappeared
-.-
Karen Ristevski's husband took over her business before she disappeared in Melbourne | Daily Mail Online
  • Borce took over his wife's company four months before disappearance
-.-
There was also no evidence of a physical fight, with no witnesses hearing yelling on the morning Karen was killed. (Yelling - see above)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stary Norton Halphen lawyer Sam Norton, who represented Ristevski during his pre-trial hearing, was coy when asked by Daily Mail Australia today how his client was doing.

'Much better now,' he said.

Ristevski's confession on the eve of his five-week murder trial has left relatives shocked, with many now trying to figure out why he suddenly changed his story.

It is a mystery that even has seasoned detectives baffled.

'I'm not sure what caused him to admit it as we have no cause of death,' one officer said.

Ristevski himself appears to have told his legal team the death of his wife was spontaneous.

In arguing to dismiss his post-conduct behaviour, RIstevski's legal team argued police had no clues as to a possible motive for murder.

Inside the Ristevski investigation - How he got away with murder. | Daily Mail Online
 
sosocurious said:
Stary Norton Halphen lawyer Sam Norton, who represented Ristevski during his pre-trial hearing, was coy when asked by Daily Mail Australia today how his client was doing.

'Much better now,' he said.

Ristevski's confession on the eve of his five-week murder trial has left relatives shocked, with many now trying to figure out why he suddenly changed his story.

It is a mystery that even has seasoned detectives baffled.

'I'm not sure what caused him to admit it as we have no cause of death,' one officer said.

Ristevski himself appears to have told his legal team the death of his wife was spontaneous.

In arguing to dismiss his post-conduct behaviour, RIstevski's legal team argued police had no clues as to a possible motive for murder.

Inside the Ristevski investigation - How he got away with murder. | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
BBM. What does BR mean by Karen’s death was ‘spontaneous’? Is he still trying to minimise his involvement in her homicide?
 
FromGermany said:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...hter-not-to-trust-police-20190318-p5154m.html

But Ristevski's lawyers said the couple's financial situation would actually get worse with Karen's death.

"She was in effect the heartbeat of the Bella Bleu clothing business ... Her importance to that business was a motive for the accused not to kill her," the court documents read.
Bella Bleu was owned by Warrant Brands, which originally paid the expenses, including staff wages, rent and stock purchases.
But in December 2015, Mr Ristevski started Envirovision and named himself the director. His daughter, Sarah Ristevski, was a stakeholder. There was no mention in court of Karen’s involvement, if any.
‘Yelling and screaming’ heard before Karen disappeared
-.-
Karen Ristevski's husband took over her business before she disappeared in Melbourne | Daily Mail Online
  • Borce took over his wife's company four months before disappearance
-.-
There was also no evidence of a physical fight, with no witnesses hearing yelling on the morning Karen was killed. (Yelling - see above)
Click to expand...
Snip >Her importance to that business was a motive for the accused not to kill her," the court documents read.

That is only assuming someone with above average intelligence.

One doesn't have to be very smart to plan a murder. A stupid murder is still a murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 130 more.
Total: 1,883 (members: 131, guests: 1,752)

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,752
Total visitors
1,883
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,875
Messages
18,212,341
Members
233,992
Latest member
gisberthanekroot
Back
Top